Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

You sound like what you are saying is that a scientist can't measure a PERCEPTION of green. But as that is true of every possible perception of a physical quantity/force (of gravity, of length, of weight) it's hardly interesting.

Click to expand...

Gravity exist and can be measured
Length does not exist and strangely cannot be measured
Weight is a variable and a concept again does not exist

What is interesting is how stuff which has no physicality and only "exist" or can only be thought of, not put on a lab table to be sliced and diced, or detected by instruments is confused with stuff which has a physicality, ie exist

What is interesting is how stuff which has no physicality and only "exist" or can only be thought of, not put on a lab table to be sliced and diced, or detected by instruments is confused with stuff which has a physicality, ie exist

Click to expand...

Most properties don't have physicality. But that doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't real. The property or qualia of greenness is objective, impactful, and is experienced by us. It is therefore real. Defining existence as physicality, particularly as something that can exist as a discrete object in spacetime, has its limitations.

True colours / weight / length aspects are not that profound HOWEVER I believe a little more profound when they impact on the workings of the brain. As in thought processes. god can be thought of as being the greatest con job ever

Click to expand...

OK. You are saying three completely different things here.

One, it sounds like you agree that physical constants and physical measurements are fairly objective. Agreed.

Two, you are saying that it's interesting to consider how people interpret things. While that may interest people, it's somewhat sophomoric. "Hey, what if what I think of as green, you think of as . . . now check this out . . . PURPLE! And how would you know? Doesn't that blow your mind?" Not really. No one's perception is 100% the same as another person's, and thus saying that one person's perception of green is another person's perception of purple isn't accurate to begin with.

Three, you think that religion is something of a deception. I agree, it can be.

All properties. There is no sense in which a property is a physical thing. It can be measured, but only as instantiated in a physical object. Length or weight or mass or size cannot in themselves be measured as objects. They are ideas or abstractions.

All properties. There is no sense in which a property is a physical thing. It can be measured, but only as instantiated in a physical object. Length or weight or mass or size cannot in themselves be measured as objects. They are ideas or abstractions.

Click to expand...

I guess we disagree about what ACTUALLY exist

Which MAY explain why, with odd occurancences, I tend to believe have mudane explanations with no expectation of anything supernatural involved

Three, you think that religion is something of a deception. I agree, it can be.

Click to expand...

My thoughts run along the following and I would like to find out one day if studies have been done on

"If people have a predisposition t(hard wired) or learn (taught, pick up) - or a mixture (nature / nurture) to consider thinking about stuff and considering it to be real - puts them futher up the religion road - than those who, in my opinion, tend to require something with a physicality or evidence via equipment, before accepting stuff is REAL"

I am not saying CONCEPTS of the stuff mentioned are not talked about, and good handles for explaining points to get to an agreement, but belief in such points CONCEPTS having objective EXISTENCE - for me no no

While I would not call it black and white is this the division Science / religion?

Religion - think of the millions killed in the name of religion (my concept a con job based on belief)
AGAINST
Science - the numbers killed due (directly) due to the use of science

Think religion wins hand down in the killing fields (as well as the rest of the world unpleasantness)

I may be missing something, but how is the existence of a color related to:
- the existence of a photograph of something that's probably not directly photographable;
- the existence of a photograph of something that's definitely not directly photographable;
- the existence of a photograph of something that cannot be photographed (an event from before photography was possible);
- a nonsensical thing (2x);
- a silly measure/unit (2x)?

I don't understand the purpose of these weird comparisons? Let's grant that one cannot make a photograph of energy; does that mean the color green exists, or not? What's the logic behind your argument?

Click to expand...

Yet it's very simple.

The only form in which green exists is qualitative, i.e. as what's often called "qualia", and this only in the context of our private, subjective experience. Look at something green and you will experience green, or greenness, and that's apparently the only way to do it, except probably by direct electrical stimulation of the neurons involved. Yet M345 is asking me to provide him with green in the quantitative form typical of the physical, objective world, a form in which green probably doesn't exist. This is absurd. Anyone a bit familiar with the issue would refrain from making such a naively realistic request. So, to make this point, I just asked him back to do something equally impossible.

I forgot I think to ask him to send me a sample of Black Hole for good measure. I hope you're at least familiar with the principle of reasoning from absurdity, i.e. reductio ad absurdum. I thought that was something everybody understood.

M245's position is also particularly absurd because he no doubt experiences green himself, and on a regular basis, and certainly no less than he does energy or mass or distance. In fact, it's arguable that we experience green much more directly than any of those things. So, in effect he, too, knows green, at least when he is looking at anything green, and that which you know cannot possibly not exist. And yet, here he is, denying the existence of green. Plainly absurd.

And this has been well known for quite some time now. Where has he been all these years?! His arguments are just primitive to say the least, and repetitive. So my assumption is that his position is essentially ideological, which is now confirmed by the connection he explicitly suggested between insisting like I do that green exists and a religious inclination. That's ideology writ large for you. I'm not religious in the least. Likely though, I'm more tolerant of religious people that he is. I'm only intolerant of intolerance, be it of a religious nature or not.
EB